Evaluation of GCF IL‐17, IL‐10, TWEAK, and sclerostin levels after scaling and root planing and adjunctive use of diode laser application in patients with periodontitis

Abstract

Background The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of the diode laser as an adjunct to scaling and root planing (SRP) and also determine the biochemical profile by evaluating the gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) levels of interleukin (IL)‐17, IL‐10, tumor necrosis factor‐related weak inducer of apoptosis (TWEAK), and sclerostin. Methods A total of 40 systemically healthy, patients with Stage III periodontitis were included in this randomized controlled study. Participants were randomly divided into two groups as SRP + diode laser (L) (0.80W power, 940 nm wavelength and 0.80J/s energy level) and only SRP group. Recording of periodontal parameters and collecting GCF samples were performed at baseline, first and 3rd months. Biomarker levels in GCF were measured with ELISA Results At baseline, no significant difference was detected between groups in terms of both clinical and biochemical parameters. All biochemical parameters (except for IL‐10 in control group), presented a statistically significant difference for 3 months study period in both groups. When laser and control groups were compared, significant differences were not observed, except the lower GCF IL‐17 levels (P = 0.025), bleeding on probing (P = 0.028), and clinical attachment level (CAL) (P = 0.0002) values in laser group at third, first, and third months, respectively. Statistically significant correlations were also noted between biochemical parameters and clinical parameters. Conclusions The GCF IL‐17, TWEAK, and sclerostin levels may be useful for monitoring response to SRP+L therapy. However, long‐term studies on higher populations are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of adjunctive use of diode laser application to SRP.

Expression of Wnt signaling agonists and antagonists in periodontitis and healthy subjects, before and after non‐surgical periodontal treatment: A systematic review

“…No significant differences between healthy and periodontitis sites were found in only one study 51 . When the correlation between SOST and clinical parameters was evaluated, significant positive findings were identified in five investigations 45,47,48,50,57 . With respect to Wnt5a, the expression of Wnt5a mRNA was significantly higher in periodontitis in two publications 55,56 .…”

“…The follow‐up time ranged from 1 week to 3 months. The levels of SOST showed a significant decrease at 6 weeks 45 and 3 months 47,48 following non‐surgical periodontal treatment, while one study found no significant difference was found at 1‐month post‐treatment 47 . Therefore, during the early healing phase (≤30 days), the change in the SOST concentration was not significant, however reached significance at the late phase following periodontal treatment.…”

“…The findings regarding the marker levels in periodontitis following non‐surgical periodontal treatment are shown in Table 3. Four interventional studies were included in the present systematic review based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria 45–48 . The type of treatment provided to the included periodontitis patients was scaling and root planning either in a single visit 47,48 or by quadrant 45 .…”

“…The ROB 2.0 tool was selected to evaluate the risk of bias of the included randomized clinical trials and is shown in Figure S1. Both included randomized clinical trials and were considered to have some concern due to bias in selection of the reported result 47,48 . The remaining two interventional non‐randomized studies were assessed using the MINORS tool which is shown in Table S2.…”

“…Different classification systems and arbitrary criteria were utilized in the included studies, while three investigations did not report the criteria for the diagnosis of periodontal health 54–56 . In periodontitis patients, a number of studies included only generalized cases 45,47,51,54,56,57 . Smokers were also included in three studies and they were primarily periodontitis patients, 49–51 while four investigations did not report on the smoking status of the subjects included 47,55,56,60 .…”